With technology developing faster than anyone can publish research into its harms, and with children spending hours online each day, we are leaving young people completely unprotected from the tech industry. Designed to be addictive and completely unregulated, how much gold-standard evidence do we need before we act? asks Bernadka Dubicka.

Earlier this year I took part in an IAI debate about social media and addiction, speaking as a child psychiatrist. As happened with Covid-19, and previously with the climate debate, the academic arguments rage on while the research lags far behind the growth of technology. In the years it takes to complete a study, the tech industry will have moved on to the next generation of platforms, apps, and young users. The research is out of date before it has barely started.

How long do we wait for sufficient gold-standard evidence of the harms of tech on children before we act? Ten years? Twenty? In the meantime, do we believe that tech is a force for good for children or a cause of harm? That depends on which camp you stand in. And if you have foot in each camp, this is not a dichotomous argument: We want our kids to benefit from technology but have many valid concerns. Recently the WHO used the precautionary principle to advise against the use of screens for babies and minimal use for toddlers. This was on the basis of emerging evidence for harms, and because the potential harm to development outweighed any benefits.

If we do not have gold-standard academic data, where do we start to assess the exponential growth of tech and its impact? How about with the tech execs themselves? What advice do tech execs give to their children? Bill Gates insisted on no smartphones for his kids until they were 14 with limits on screen time; snapchat founder Evan Spiegel limited screen time to 1.5 hours per week (for comparison, UK kids spend about 2 hours a day online, plus another couple of hours watching TV); Steve Jobs had evening screen time bans and no iPad. The list goes on.

As happened with Covid-19, and previously with the climate debate, the academic arguments rage on while the research lags far behind the growth of technology.

They clearly see reasons to limit the use of tech. So, what do they know that we do not? And why can’t they share their reasons? This would be especially valuable for the most vulnerable children who are living in poverty, and whose parents do not have the time or knowledge to monitor their online lives?  If using tech is a greater force for good and promotes healthy child development, there would be no need for their draconian measures. Or do you sense a whiff of hypocrisy?

In an area with many unanswered questions, these executives are precisely the ones who could give us some answers. Some of them already have. Jennifer Zhu Scott, a tech company investor, TED speaker, and big data expert, has devised a family contract to teach her children about being online: Nothing is private online, what goes online stays online, their personal data is their most valuable asset, and that many free apps are free because they take and sell personal data. In her words, ‘a cell phone is more than a piece of technology. If used wrongly, it can be a weapon that puts your safety or future reputation at risk’.